And hurry up about it
People will get aggrieved and resentful and angry and irritated about anything, have you noticed?
Senior leaders within the Muslim Council of Britain tried to reverse the controversial decision to stay away from Holocaust memorial day, the Guardian has learned…It is understood that Daud Abdullah, the deputy secretary general, and affiliate members from the Muslim Association of Britain joined forces to oppose the lifting of the ban at the meeting last November. They were aided by irritation at the way the government has sought to bring the MCB into line. Last October, Ms Kelly appeared to criticise the MCB and suggested that organisations that snubbed the holocaust event might be starved of funds.
Irritation ‘at the way the government has sought to bring the MCB into line’. But the government gives the MCB money (for reasons which are somewhat mysterious, at least to me). The government might decide to stop giving the MCB money. This is irritating? Why is the government obliged to go on giving the MCB money, even if it decides it’s not crazy about what the MCB does?
It’s probably natural to think that way; to think that once people start handing you money on a plate, they have to continue; but it’s irritating.
Noga,
Well imagine how things will look if the MCB goes on being stuffed with government funds as a result of refusing to acknowledge the Holocaust. What’s the point of bribing Muslims to refuse to recognize a historical event? What is the point of any of it? I sure can’t figure it out – except of course for the capacity thing.
You seem to be just accepting the view of the irritated ones, that the money is somehow owed to them, if not already theirs. Why is it owed to them? For doing what? Boycotting Holocaust day? Having no prominent women? What?
Ophelia:
I am fully sympathetic to the frustration you express. My comment was meant to be ironical, my questions unanswerable, because the situation you described appears to me as totally self-defeating in its absurdity. Any which way the government proceeds from here, it is doomed for failure. You can’t bribe people to have more compassion and tolerance. And you certainly can’t punish them into a more amiable humour. You just can’t. But once you start paying, stopping will engender more anger and resentment. If I were the government, I would have no idea how to go about solving this issue, even partly.
From the point of view of an outsider, it’s a muddle. And my ironical turn of mind is due to the helplessness implied in the cliche: “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.
Noga, I for one dont concern myself about how it will look if the goverment of this nation cease dolling out tax payers money to this festering bunch of anti semites!
Taking ‘handing you money on a plate’ to mean something given freely, no strings attached, a gift, is it natural to think that such an act creates in the recipient the expectation that the giver is under an obligation to give again, or continue giving? That they have to continue? I’d say it might be natural for the recipient to think it might happen again and if it does, that the event is more likely to occur in the future. The birds that come to the table in my garden seem to think so. Am I now obliged to give food because they now come bacause I created the expectation? They might die otherwise and it will be my fault! Is it the same with humans? Is there a particular number of acts of giving after which it is natural for the recipient to think it must coninue, that the giver is obliged, but before which it is not?
In any case, the MCB did not get the grant(s) for free, on a plate. They were obliged to do things in return: attend meetings, produce various work, promote various things etc. etc. (not that I think any of it worth paying for and the conditions irritatingly did not extend to public identity of the trustee to whom the money was given or that he need account for what he did with it). So, even if it were natural to think that money given on a plate must continue to be given, this is not a case where it would be natural to do so bacause it was not given on a plate, it was given with obligations.
But then, the conditions of the grants did contain the note :- “You should not rely on receiving a grant after the expiry of this one.”
So they know very well there is no obligation for the govt. to give them more money. It would not be natural to read that note and then think they must be given more money. If they do, it’s even more irritating because it’s not natural at all.
Ah! Sorry for being dim about the irony, Noga.
Interesting about the obligations. So there is irritation about a situation that has been there all along. Don’t they just sound like adolescents – gimme everything I want but don’t tell me what to do, nyah.
And don’t I just sound like Outraged of Sevenoaks. Too bad; that’s me (except for the Sevenoaks part).